take the information to the white house. we were trying to balance notification against an impact it would have an on investigation. you would have to wait until flynn was interviewed by the fbi. a combination of factors, that as well as the fact the misrepresentations didn t really start until mid-january that aggravated the significance. because of mitsubishi representations to . because of misrepresentations to the president and others in the white house it took it to another level. it certainly did affect the ability to use that information for compromise with the russians. did you leak to the washington post. you re a brave man mr. stevens. your testimony will save lives. this is your new name. your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous
interview with fired attorney general sally yates. she comes from long line of lawyers. sally yates brought a story to the office and department of justice but after her senate testimony on russia none of that stopped the white house from labelling her a political opponent to the president. appointed by the obama administration. the day after you testified the white house called you a political opponent of president trump. no look i m a 27 year veteran of the department of justice. some will say look politics must play a role in some way. that has nothing to do with how i did my job here. and i ve opinion doing my job for a whole lot of job in doj even when you re appointed by the president at that point the
discrepancy. she said she gave access to white house on january 30th. they didn t get access until february 2nd. it was ready january 30th. you wanted the white house to act. we expected the white house to act. did you expect them to react quickly. yes. there was urgency to the situation. yes i called monday morning to let mr. mccann know it was ready. that was another issue he raised in the second meeting was whether they could look at the under lying evidence that established general flynn s conduct, this is really unusual for us or for the fbi to allow this. because there was an ungoing investigation. but this was real important we gave a good bit of detail not just a conclusion we walked through in a fair amount of
behind a president s actions has been laid out in the kind of vivid detail it was here. and an intent nas unconstitutional in my view. assuming this goes to the supreme court, that s what it s going to boil down to an argument over that 1952 provision. i don t know i think it will boil down to well, it could be a number of issues. on that. but certainly i would think the president s motivation wab what he was trying to accomplish wab was that an effort to disfavor muslims essentially an effort to make good on the travel ban as best he could excuse me the muslim ban as best he could. ed i would expect that would be an issue before the supreme court. are you planning on getting into politics? for 72 hours of intense and continuous hydration. not heavy, sticky or oily. skin s quenched.
the president thought michael flynn didn t do anything wrong, there s not a legal issue rather a trust issue. do you agree there was no legal issue with flynn s under lying behavior zpr i don t know how the white house reached the conclusion there was no legal issue it certainly wasn t from my discussion with them. do you think michael flynn should be fired. whether he s fired or not is a decision for the president of the united states to make but doesn t seem like that s the person should be sitting in the security national security position. did you leak to the washington post? absolutely not. did you authorize someone to leak to the post. i did not and would not leak classified information. have you ever leaked classified information. no. the president seems to suggest you were behind this. the morning before you testified he tweeted ask sally yates if she knows class actiified